May 21, 2014

I've long argued that if you want to make coherent logical sense of the U.S. government's distinction between race and ethnicity, then:

- A racial group is a partly inbred biological extended family

- While an ethnic group is united by some or all of the nonbiological traits usually found among extended families but that aren't necessarily biological, such as shared language, religion, cuisine, heroes, customs, and so forth.

The most obvious example for thinking about this involves adoption: An adoptee might be racially Korean but also be ethnically white Minnesotan Lutheran or whatever.

Hispanics are often described as driving up the nonwhite share of the population. But a new study of census forms finds that more Hispanics are identifying as white.

An estimated net 1.2 million Americans of the 35 million Americans identified in 2000 as of “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin,” as the census form puts it, changed their race from “some other race” to “white” between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, according to research presented at an annual meeting of the Population Association of America and reported by Pew Research.

All over the world, in both Latin America and India, people want to be seen as fairer, going so far as to painfully bleach their skin (e.g., Sammy Sosa). In America, however, the government, academia, and media offer incentives for these folks to identify strongly as nonwhite. However, that bangs up against their distaste for African-Americans.

The researchers, who have not yet published their findings, compared individual census forms from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. They found that millions of Americans answered the census questions about race and ethnicity differently in 2000 and 2010. The largest shifts were among Americans of Hispanic origin, who are the nation’s fastest growing ethnic group by total numbers.

Race is an immutable characteristic for many white, black and Asian-Americans.

It is less clear for Americans of Hispanic origin. The census form asks two questions about race and ethnicity: one about whether individuals are of Hispanic or Latino origin, and another about race. “Hispanics” do not constitute a race, according to the census, and so 37 percent of Hispanics, presumably dissatisfied with options like “white” or “black,” selected “some other race.”

The researchers found that 2.5 million Americans of Hispanic origin, or approximately 7 percent of the 35 million Americans of Hispanic origin in 2000, changed their race from “some other race” in 2000 to “white” in 2010. An additional 1.3 million people switched in the other direction. A noteworthy but unspecified share of the change came from children who weren’t old enough to fill out a form in 2000, but chose for themselves in 2010.

The data provide new evidence consistent with the theory that Hispanics may assimilate as white Americans, like the Italians or Irish, who were not universally considered to be white.

Which is why Italians and Irish we're constantly being sold into slavery.

But, like I've said, while the media denounce the GOP for being the White Party and thus a party that Hispanics and Asians would naturally be allergic to, the Democrats ought to fear being identified in the minds of Hispanics and Asians as the Black Party. Where the rubber hits the road, most Hispanics and Asians would rather ally with self-confident whites than with blacks, which is why the confidence of whites is under constant assault for all manner of racial high crimes and misdemeanors.

(The Republicans can help along the process of the Dems being considered the Black Party. The Dems win with Hispanics and Asians when the election is framed as the Evil White Party v. the Cool Multi-Party. The Repubs win with Hispanics and Asians when the election is framed as the Responsible Adult Party v. the Dysfunctional Corrupt Black Party.)

It is particularly significant that the shift toward white identification withstood a decade of debate over immigration and the country’s exploding Hispanic population, which might have been expected to inculcate or reinforce a sense of Hispanic identity, or draw attention to divisions that remain between Hispanics and non-Hispanic white Americans. Research suggests that Hispanics who have experienced discrimination are less likely to identify as white.

The data also call into question whether America is destined to become a so-called minority-majority nation, where whites represent a minority of the nation’s population. Those projections assume that Hispanics aren’t white, but if Hispanics ultimately identify as white Americans, then whites will remain the majority for the foreseeable future.

Of course, as the government offers money and prizes to Hispanics and Asians for identifying as non-white, it's hard to bet against their leaders insisting on being victims of the Evil White Man.

White identification is not necessarily a sign that Hispanics consider themselves white. Many or even most might identify their race as “Hispanic” if it were an explicit option.

The American government doesn't offer useful Latin American racial categories such as mestizo, mulatto, and pardo, so they tend to fill out the race and ethnicity forms in a hit or miss fashion.

... There is mounting evidence that Hispanics are succeeding in American society at a pace similar to that of prior waves of European immigrants.

As long as we ignore the economic collapse of the popping of the Mortgage Bubble.

It may be the case now that there's a great incentive to swell the big tent of non-whites to help everyone in the tent, but the main reason for things like the one drop rule was to protect white people from contamination.

If some Hispanics are calling themselves white, it may be because they are white. A descendant of Spaniards who kept the Spanish surname along the patrilineal line who never mixed with Indians or blacks is both a white person and a Hispanic.

Which is why Italians and Irish we're constantly being sold into slavery

Weren't there a lot of Irish slaves in the early decades of Colonial America and the British West Indies? Re the Italians, given proximity they must have disproportionately been victims of the Islamic slave trade in white Christians. But, like the Holodomor, no Hollywood movies about any of that.

In the new America, George Zimmerman is "white." The guy is half Jewish, half Mexican.

I'd argue that the Jewish part is white, though some people will differ. White is not the same as European. The Jewish people are not Northern European (they are a more ancient race IMO), but they are completely white - maybe the originals. I am willing to recognize then if they are willing to recognize the Northern Europeans as equals, on honest terms.

But the Mexican part is obviously not "white." The fact that anyone has to hesitate on this point or has any doubts tells me: it's time for racially conscious whites who want a future for their grand children to get out of America. There is no white future here, not any good future at least.

This absurd and cumbersome designation that's been forced on everybody, that of non-Hispanic white, has got to be scrapped along with the rest of it (Hispanic white, Hispanic black, non-Hispanic black). Why does everyone have to be defined according to their relationship to the artificial construct of Hispanic? Latin Americans have a long list of terms for the various racial mixtures that they have. In light of the new realities people in the US might need to start learning the new terms just for the sake of accuracy as well as being able to keep score. Everyone will need a crib sheet. It used to be much simpler. All part of a slide into becoming a blend of Brazil-Honduras-South Africa.

Italians sometimes look swarthy and exotic. Irish people have never looked anything other than white. Funny how their behaviour alone was sufficient to rule them out of white club. In this case, "white" seems to just mean "protestant".

This business of Irish and Italians regarded as non-white is absurd. They were regarded as non-American, which is pretty accurate. They weren't American and wouldn't be for at least one generation. Germans in the Midwest still spoke and acted more like Germans than Americans until WWI, when they were forced to assimilate. But none of these non-American immigrants were confused for Blacks or Chinese. The different races were never confused. Not only are Mestizos of a different race, but they do think or act like Americans (a different ethnicity, to use Sailer's term). Their assimilation is hard to imagine.

I think the test is whether the offspring of a European White and a self-identified White from Mexico looks and acts White. A mix of a Sicilian and Norwegian or Serb is decidedly white racially. Not so with most Mestizos and a Norwegian or Serb.

It is really true, as we're told ad nauseum, that the Italians and Irish "weren't considered white"? By the time Italian immigration began, Italy had long been revered as a repository of the West's cultural heritage (recall that generations of English and, later, American aristocrats finished there education there). As for the Irish, okay, nobody ever said that they carried the torch of classical civilization, but I've never met an Irishman who wasn't as pale as the inside of a potato. At any rate they were certainly considered white enough for conscription into a Union Army that was by no means eager to have African-Americans enlist.

So you'll have to put me down as skeptical of the Slate potted history according to which nobody realized that these two groups were white until about 1950. It would be great if a historian or journalist without any agenda other than finding the truth (imagine that) were to look into this.

It's not just "wanting to be seen as white." A lot of Hispanics ARE white.

Take Puerto Rico. People's perceptions of PR's is that they are racially mixed, that they are all a mix of white, Taino, and African, in varying degrees.

True but not 100%. Many are mixes of 2 of the three groups. Some are just white. When the white ones move to the mainland they become white, plain & simple. The blacks become black. The Taino/white mixes - I really don't know what happens to them.

"""""""There is mounting evidence that Hispanics are succeeding in American society at a pace similar to that of prior waves of European immigrants.""""""""

There is, where? Where is this evidence?

Seriously?

Perhaps that line was needed as a filler for the article's final paragraph, as in 'everyone knows that such and such is such and such, but with the bright tomorrow, we shall be able to face the future.'

Maybe its that kind of thing.

Where is this evidence and exactly who and how are they counting?

Haven't Hispanics been immigrating to US since before the Civil War? Have they found the level of success on par with say, the Shermans?

Well, maybe not THOSE specific immigrants, but, you know, the other folks. Those Corleones and O'Farrells, and hey, everyone knows that they weren't considered white long time ago.

Even though science isn't based upon subjective feelings and group consensus.

We need to get that damn "Hispanic ethnicity" question off the census. Even ignoring the fact that actual Latin Americans don't see themselves that way, it isn't right to have only one ethnicity represented there. If the Mexicans want gibsmedats they should be forced to at least identify as a NAM race.

One thing you might want to take advantage of is Latin American racism.

Race in Latin America is a continuum, where you can be considered a higher 'race' if you are successful. This may have something to do with those Hispanics identifying as 'white' (I might technically be one, but have little if any non-European ancestry except for theoretical Levantines two thousand years back).

Subvert and rule. Most people are less concerned with the future of the white race than they are with being mugged by Jamal and D'Shawn.

I generally agree with Sailer but defining 'ethnicity' by culture is not only contrary to the traditional understanding of 'ethnicity' (which is rooted in biology) but also goes against population genetics.

The idea of defining 'ethnicity' by culture, however, is making major inroads by Marxists like Jon Marks and Agustín Fuentes. In short, it's a bad idea.

While an ethnic group is united by some or all of the nonbiological traits usually found among extended families but that aren't necessarily biological, such as shared language, religion, cuisine, heroes, customs, and so forth.

The most obvious example for thinking about this involves adoption: An adoptee might be racially Korean but also be ethnically white Minnesotan Lutheran or whatever.

This is incorrect. An ethnic group is a "partly inbred biological extended family" as well.

Your example doesn't even support your point, since nobody considers Korean adoptees to be ethnically white Minnesotan Lutherans or whatever.

"... There is mounting evidence that Hispanics are succeeding in American society at a pace similar to that of prior waves of European immigrants."

Depends on the Hispanic group. I doubt very much that Mexicans for example are succeeding in the business and educational fields at the same high rate as WASPs, Jews, Italians, and other Non Hispanic White groups. The high school drop out rate and teen pregnancy rate among Mexicans is still significantly higher than that of Non Hispanic Whites.

But I heard Argentinians do quite well in the U.S especially for their small numbers.

This is apparent to many Whites from places with large Spanish populations whose families have lived in the US for a few hundred years. Places like Southern Colorado, West Texas and New Mexico have sizable numbers of Hispanics who consider themselves White if not necessarily "Anglo." They consider Mexicans a separate, distinct people from themselves.

But a new study of census forms finds that more Hispanics are identifying as white.

So that's the new method - identification? So if I were to decide to no longer identify as someone of Irish extraction, I could just declare myself to be an Ashkenazi Jew?

But of course it doesn't actually work that way. The famous spy Sidney Riley - the guy that James Bond was modeled on - was by birth a Russian Jew. He was asked why he chose to go about under an Irish name. He said - 'Everyone hates the Jews, everyone loves the Irish'.

Steve, slave status and nonwhite status were NOT synonymous. What many of the "Race Traitor" people (like Noel Ignatiev) failed to understand is that LEGAL STATUS as "white" means far more that whether prejudiced individuals consider you white or not.

There was an effort to create a Mexican racial category during the early 1930s. Both the Government of Mexico and higher class (lighter-skinned) Mexican-Americans strongly protested. FDR's administration quietly changed the census rules so all people of Latin American or Spanish background would be labeled "white" (regardless of looks or ancestry).

When I signed up for 23andme I paid them $100 and spit in a little tube. If we are to ever make sense of ethnicity mustn't we have the Census Bureau require all Americans send in a spit tube?

The genetics of race are still murky so the results would not be definitive at first. But the government keeps records. When we get a better theory of race and racial SNP patterns, we could make more sensible racial assignments.

The Hispanics that we are interested in are those that have Amerindian mitochondrial DNA and European Y - Chromosome DNA. These are the descendants of the conquistadors.

I'm always tempted to check the Hispanic box on government forms because I took half a semester of Spanish in my junior year in high school and I'm particularly fond of Polo en Mole. I also really liked Jose Carreras and Placido Domingo at the opera. So I am arguably Hispanic linguistically and culturally.

"This is why Whites must have a clear conception of what it means to be White. Otherwise, this is how societies eventually turn all Brown"

You guys keep making the same mistake, you need to flip the script, instead of a one drop black rule, make it a one drop white rule (or at least 50%).

Claim your children, the culture that claims is children are the ones that take over, if you keep letting your outdated racialist hangs up get the best of you, you will keep losing out on increasing your numbers, as well as running the risk of becoming a smaller genetic population, with a high risk of genetic diseases (see askenazi jews, amish, etc).

"Hispanics/latinos" and even arabs have actually increased their white populations by claiming those who are majority white, and a little amerindian blood or even asian or african will only make a stronger gene pool and larger white population in the long run!

Well said. Asians for one would drop the democrats like a hot potato if they were seen as the black party instead of the cool young attractive single college kid party (as portrayed on 21 jump street for instance). But the republicans treat the blacks like sacred cows just as much as the democrats do. They will never paint the dems that way.

The far more interesting - and yet to be studied - question is whether a significant proportion of Hispanic immigrants and their descendants is really assimilating, i.e., acting more like second-generation and earlier, native-born, whites.

"The data also call into question whether America is destined to become a so-called minority-majority nation, where whites represent a minority of the nation’s population. Those projections assume that Hispanics aren’t white, but if Hispanics ultimately identify as white Americans, then whites will remain the majority for the foreseeable future."

So "White" has more to do with self identification rather than phenotype/ancestry ?

So if a Mestizo like Gabriel Iglesias for example checks the "White" box in the U.S census form, that means he is part of the same race as blond haired and blue eyed Ryan Gosling ?

if the definition of "White" is anybody who self identifies as "White", than under this definition Rihanna is "White" since that is hows she saw herself back in Barbados.

There is also a school desegregation case that predates Brown by 20 years. A group of Mex-Americans sued a California school district for barring their kids from a White school. Their argument wasn't that school desegregation was bad no their argument was they were White and thus were erroneously barred. The high court agreed.

Needless to say this case doesn't generate the same level of interest at Brown v Board.

I generally agree with Sailer but defining 'ethnicity' by culture is not only contrary to the traditional understanding of 'ethnicity' (which is rooted in biology) but also goes against population genetics.

It's the US government which is trying to create "ethnicity by culture". The "Hispanic ethnicity", which exists nowhere else in the world outside the US, is one example of this. So is the "Asian ethnicity". In both cases people with little to nothing in common are coerced into thinking of themselves as brothers.

Offtopic but relevant to an older article here:Russian oligarch told to pay out 4.5 Billion dollars to his ex wife in divorce settlement.When the heck are some rich guys going to get together and end this alimony shakedown racket? If you are a hot girl and you get married and lay on your back and get f*cked by a billionaire who then cheats on you, you are entitled to become one of the wealthiest people on earth. On the other hand if you went through the exact same experience but this time with a poor man, then whoops too bad, no prizes for you.

There seems to be 2 definitions of "White" in the U.S, the census bureau definition of "White" and the affirmative action definition of "White"

Under the census bureau definition of "White", someone from Guatemala or Yemen for example is a "White" person. Because the census bureau basically considers the Middle East and Latin America to be racial extensions of Europe.

Under the affirmative action definition of White, a Guatemalan and a Yemeni are not seen as White and thus qualify for affirmative action programs. Under the affirmative action definition of White, White = only European.

When the time comes, I fully intend on claiming my son as Hispanic on his college applications and other vital information, on the grounds that I lived in Puerto Rico from ages 7 to 11. It also helps that he is 1/4th Korean, which makes him look slightly Mestizo.

"Weren't there a lot of Irish slaves in the early decades of Colonial America and the British West Indies? " - maybe indentured servants, but the plantation system displaced them, and of course favored african slaves.

As a title for the modern Democratic Party, I prefer “the Misery-Pimping Party.”

I am actually old enough to remember a time, before the late 1960s, when the only substantial demographic group that the Democrats misery-pimped on was white, male, blue-collar union guys. Yes, this was before Democrats discovered blacks, women, Hispanics, gays and the whole BLT Community.

Unionized white guys were, in Democrats’ telling, the salt of earth, the builders of the nation, the winners of World War II, but also the potential helpless victims of those archfiend Republicans who would strip them of their unions and union bargaining power.

So the dimmer of the unionized white males believed this, reliably voted Democrat and continued trusting their unions to preserve and expand their compensation and work rules. Republicans, even if some might have liked to, never touched union power.

And the unions proceeded to bargain their companies and industries into extinction or near extinction. So there were no more, or very few, unionized white males to misery-pimp on, at least in sufficient numbers to win elections. No matter, Democrats had long since moved on to new marks.

Anonymous:"When the time comes, I fully intend on claiming my son as Hispanic on his college applications and other vital information, on the grounds that I lived in Puerto Rico from ages 7 to 11. It also helps that he is 1/4th Korean, which makes him look slightly Mestizo."

Just make sure that he doesn't mention having Korean ancestry.Universities hate having too many part-East Asians around.

I grew up in an area full with Irish descendents with pale, pale skin. I never found that coloring to be attractive. I don't find really dark women to be attractive either, but that seems to a function of the associated facial features.

I find moderately dark skin to be most atttactive in women. From a purely sexual perspective, the most attractive women in earth are 1) the Cuban chicks (olive skin) in Miami, and 2) the completely Americanized Asian girls in Hawaii (bronzed skin).

Lots of mixed-raced castizos, quadroons, octoroons in the Center-West and North (some are mulattos, but not as common) compromising 45% of the population, more pure whites in the South and Southeast making up 45% of the populace, with fewer pure blacks/Amerindians residing in Northeast (Bahia) and making up just 7% of the population. The other 2% is East Asian and most live in the near white people.

Thanks to heavy white male predominance in Brazilian genetics stemming from Conquistadores, and afterwards common prostitution and illegitimacy (cohabitation), the average mixed-raced (Pardo) Brazilian has been confirmed to be about 70-85% white Caucasian, 10-15% black and 5-15% Amerindian.

The whites on average range between 90-100% white thanks to some inbreeding. Most of them were white immigrants whom arrived during WWI and WWII from Portugal, Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, plus Middle Easterners such as Lebanon and Syria and East Asians such as Taiwanese Chinese and Japanese.

It's a little known fact - little known to the people who read this blog, at least - that the Church of England persecuted non-Anglican Protestants nearly as ferociously as it did Catholics. Why that should be little known is a mystery, as it's the reason why America was founded by non-Anglican Protestants fleeing persecution and why they put a "no establishment of religion" clause in their Constitution. But in the peculiar world of iSteve readers its all Anglicans, Baptists and Presbyterians standing shoulder to shoulder. It's like an Orange Order lodge around here.

"Weren't there a lot of Irish slaves in the early decades of Colonial America and the British West Indies? " - maybe indentured servants...

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html(...)Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.

The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.

I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.(...)

I like the idea of non whites aspiring to be white. Isn't the problem with multi culturalism in America the problems with assimilation? The more white the better.

As far as Hispanic preference in elite schools ... the last person I met in that category was from Argentina, and both parents had PhD's. If anyone was able to find a true representative sample of theoretically under-represented Hispanics in highly selective colleges, I suspect that this type of background would prove to be at least 50%.

There are assuredly not black, Native American, or Asian. What, are they their “own race”?

“Irish were considered to be white by the US government from the foundation of the country.”

No, the Irish at that time and well into the 1860‘s were stereotyped as uncivilized, unskilled and impoverished.

“Not only are Mestizos of a different race...”

First, they are European + Native American. Second, mestizo is an “ethnic” group, NOT a race.

“I think the test is whether the offspring of a European White and a self-identified White from Mexico looks and acts White.”

Patently subjective.

“Send me those perks and preferences.”

You already have them, it’s called being a human being :)

“So if a Mestizo like Gabriel Iglesias for example checks the "White" box in the U.S census form, that means he is part of the same race as blond haired and blue eyed Ryan Gosling?”

Absolutely. Because whites dominate...everything. Note how people are hilariously going all Bil Keane on race--NOT ME, says the black man who has Caucasian blood in them. NOT ME, says the white man who has Native American blood in them.

Welcome, amigos. The cream does indeed rise to the top. Study hard, work hard, and succeed without any government handouts and you are indeed white, and Republican. Asians are welcome too. Same qualifications. Practicing the Christian faith would help, too.

The majority of the illegals probably are of Amerindian background. You rarely see illegals of European background because they tend to stay in Mexico or immigrate through the usual channels. The Amerindians come here because there are no opportunities in Mexico for them because of their race. However even they don't want to be identified as black.

Race in Latin America is a continuum, where you can be considered a higher 'race' if you are successful.

'Money whitens,' as they say.

A lot of the readjustment in racial categories noted in this article is a result of the defining down of what 'white' looks like. There are fewer and fewer northern Europeans on the streets so the average white simply appears less white, which makes it easier for part-whites to identify as white. I recall a remark maybe some ten years ago describing James Franco (!) as having an "all-American look." Wow, that's a long way, from the tall, blond, blue-eyed quarterback of yesteryear. I met a Mexican in Australia last year who said he was fascinated by how "everyone is white here." This was in the heart of Melbourne which to my eyes most assuredly does not seem that way.

I didn't read the article so I'm not sure if it noted this, but there were some half a million fewer "two or more races; white+some_other_race" in 2010 compared to 2000, which is also indicative of the trend towards identifying as white. As they people probably see it, they're "close enough" and they're probably increasingly regarded as white by distinctive non-whites and perhaps 'treated' or 'accepted' as white by whites so they figure they may as well self-identify as white.

And it's not just a reduction in the white+SOR category changing their racial identification. Racial mixing is an ongoing fact, so many more people who would have once identified as two or more races, white+SOR are now simply selecting white alone. The number of two or more races, white+black skyrocketed between 2000 and 2010, but whites mix with hispanics at about six times the rate they mix with blacks, so the fact these white+SORs failed to show up on the 2010 census is very telling.

This could be interpreted as good news is one's concern is to reduce anti-whitism and to reinforce white culture. But if the intention is for the (real) white race to live on, this is simply slow-motion extinction, and to be deplored.

Heh, what a lark. You need to listen up Idle Spectator, because I'm about to tell you something very important. If nothing changes (and you insist that it shouldn't) people like me - 'white' but not White - are going to be the future of America. 'Anti-racism is just something you tell Whites ('WASPs') to shut them up, not something you should believe in yourself' - the vast majority of people I've put that proposition to agree with it wholeheartedly. Just think what that means. Actually, I'll tell you what it means. It means that if people like me ever come into power it's all over for you and your delusions. All over red rover. I'd pack you off to Africa where you can experience the 'Kenyan ways of intelligence' firsthand in heartbeat. Something to think about, isn't it.

“Irish were considered to be white by the US government from the foundation of the country.”

No, the Irish at that time and well into the 1860‘s were stereotyped as uncivilized, unskilled and impoverished.

The First Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to 'free white people' of good morale character. Free Irishman were able to be naturalized. Whether the rest of the population considered them uncivilized or not, the fact is the law allowed them to become citizens. Hence, they must have been considered white.

" I recall a remark maybe some ten years ago describing James Franco (!) as having an "all-American look." Wow, that's a long way, from the tall, blond, blue-eyed quarterback of yesteryear."

Blond hair and blue eyes is still the all American look in U.S states that have very few Italians and Jews.

Don't expect the average White person in New York for example to look Nordic. But the average White person in say Nebraska will have a more Nordic look.

James Franco was born in California. Which has a very large Non Nordic White population. California attracted a lot of Portuguese immigrants as well as Jewish immigrants and Armenian immigrants.

The Midwest states as well as the Southern states (with exception of Florida) have the "blondest" Whites in the country. I put "blond" in quotation because I am also including the lighter shades of mousy brown that is typical in Northern Europeans. Most Northern Europeans do not have the very dark brown hair that looks almost black that is so common among Mediterranean and Middle Eastern people.

"It means that if people like me ever come into power it's all over for you and your delusions. All over red rover. I'd pack you off to Africa where you can experience the 'Kenyan ways of intelligence' firsthand in heartbeat. Something to think about, isn't it."

You ought to star in your own delusional reality TV show "Internet Tough Guy".

I'm the LEAST worried about you and "your kind" rising to power and actually carrying out your plans. Something to think about, n'cest pas?

Good luck in your endeavors, racialist. You and Al Sharpton share the same bed!

"Hence, the[y] [Irish] must have been considered white."

Common knowledge, dear. According to "How The Irish Became White", by Noel Ignatiev, Irish-Americans in the late 1700's and well into the 1800's were sometimes called "Negroes turned inside out".

According to "Blacking Up: The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America", by Robert C. Toll, Irish caricatures appeared alongside blackface performers in minstrel shows.

You ought to star in your own delusional reality TV show "Internet Tough Guy".

Your delusion is imagining that it's only I who feel this way. That is so far from the truth I can only laugh. There will come a day when you can no longer hide from the stark reality, however. For now, sure, enjoy your fleeting moment in the sun.

Common knowledge, dear. According to "How The Irish Became White", by Noel Ignatiev, Irish-Americans in the late 1700's and well into the 1800's were sometimes called "Negroes turned inside out".

And yet they were able to become naturalized citizens of the USA according to the provisions of the 1790 act which was crafted by the first congress and signed into law by Washington. Hence, they were white.

"It is really true, as we're told ad nauseum, that the Italians and Irish "weren't considered white"? By the time Italian immigration began, Italy had long been revered as a repository of the West's cultural heritage (recall that generations of English and, later, American aristocrats finished there education there)."

You are talking about a different place than the one to which most Italian-Americans trace their ancestry. At the time Italian immigration to the US peaked (1900-1910) Italy as a unified country was only a little more than a generation old. No one associated Sicily or Calabria with the Renaissance or the Grand Tour itinerary (Northern Italy).

Irish were always considered white. Protestant Americans just disliked their religion and thought they were low-class.

Italians were a little bit more complex. They were always legally white (unlike blacks and Asians) but immigrants from southern Italy were perceived as "different" in a way that the Irish and Germans weren't.

"There will come a day when you can no longer hide from the stark reality."

IF the bullets start flying, you will hiding like everyone else who talks tough. Besides, that day will not come, you're not up to going to jail.

"Hence, they were white."

You are absolutely missing the point. The Irish were NOT considered "white" by nativists, they were viewed as "subhuman". Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, performing the same tasks in society. Nativists contended that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would be with the Irish and blacks.

The Irish ultimately attained their goal--"Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.'"(1860, The Liberator)

You are absolutely missing the point. The Irish were NOT considered "white" by nativists, they were viewed as "subhuman"

You are absolutely missing the point. The Irish were considered "white" by LAW, and were allowed to become citizens by way of the naturalization act of 1790.

Reread your comment thread. The guy you quoted wrote this, "Irish were considered to be white by the US government from the foundation of the country." Note: he wrote that they were considered white by the USG. You told him he was wrong, yet you never provided proof that the government did not treat them as white. Now if you can show that the government did not consider them white, do it. Otherwise you are the one missing the point.

IF the bullets start flying, you will hiding like everyone else who talks tough. Besides, that day will not come, you're not up to going to jail.

I think you've completely missed the point. I'm not "talking tough," I'm talking about a wholesale rejection of your racial fantasies regarding (a) the truth about race and (b) the desirability of mass racial diversity. If there's a wholesale rejection who are you going to point and sputter at? In that scenario I don't think I'm wrong to imagine it being far more likely that a reality-rejecting loon like you would end up in prison - you know, you have to expect a lot of people are going to be fed up with the devastation your fantasies have created.

Really, 'Irish not being "considered" white is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.Perhaps, with Italians there is some sort of weak basis for this trashy argument, but with the Irish?

The fact is this - modern DNA techniques tell us that a typical Irishman is a closer genetic relative of a typical Englishman than another typical Englishman is. So said the recent Ralph and Coop paper on IBD sharing. Thus of the Irish weren't or aren't white, then the English cannot be also. The lefties who make this argument will always hold up the English as the sine non qua of 'whiteness'.

I claimed whites mate with hispanics at six times the rate they mate with blacks, but this is incorrect. I compiled data on the topic earlier this year but I now falsely recalled my findings. Such large disparities are not unknown, but the overall disparity is much smaller. Based on births to white women in 2011, whites women nearly twice as likely to mate with a hispanic male than a black male.

There are assuredly not black, Native American, or Asian. What, are they their “own race”?------

Wtf is your argument here? It is a fact that the average Mexican has majority Amerind genes, but they are "assuredly" not Indian? So being 30% white + 70% Indian = white? They are mixed race if you want to be as specific as possible, but if you're gonna say they aren't Indian you can't better say they are white. They are, for a scientific fact, more Indian than white

That's how they win in Mexico they compared the PRD candidate AMLO Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela a mulatto/zambo ruled country showing how Mexico would be ruled and he lost both elections. They even show photos of him looking more mulatto than mestizo just to mess with voters heads.

I am largely Irish. I am indeed as pale as the inside of a potato. But my friend Donald who is Swedish is even whiter than I am. He's blond with transparent skin. His 23andme results show that he is a tiny bit Irish. That would make sense as Dublin was founded by the Vikings.

Cahill does indeed make a case for the classical connection to the Irish. At one point in the ninth century Johns Scotus, the Irish theologian, was one of only two men in Europe who could still read Latin - the Pope was the other one.

The Irish then reintroduced Christianity throughout Europe. The Irish established the city of Kiev around their cathedral.

But on the other hand in the nineteenth century in the kind of racist tracts that Steven Jay Gould popularized, they show the 'Great Chain of Being' with Africans at the bottom, Englishmen at the top, and the Irish in between looking decidedly ape-like. The Irish are shown as almost as prognathous as the Africans. Depicting the Irish as anthropoids was quite popular in the press and quite similar to the Nazi depiction of Jews.

My mother was a DAR. She told me that Italians were 'polygots'. I think she meant polyglots but she always said polygots. They were, I was told - on the authority of the DAR - inferior people. When I was around ten I asked about the Romans. She said that the Romans had all died out and were replaced by the polygots. It was sort of like the Anatomically Modern Humans replacing the Neanderthals but in reverse.

There were at that time a lot of theories about how the Romans were really Germanic. And the Dorians who brought us Classical Greece were also Aryans.

This "Irish weren't white" meme or truism has a bit of Up-Is-Down/Day-Is-Night about it. Hopefully to stomp this right now, the problem wasn't their lack of whiteness but rather their abundance of Irishness

"Funny how their behaviour alone was sufficient to rule them out of white club. In this case, "white" seems to just mean "protestant".

It wasn't their "behavior." It was mainly their version of Roman Catholicism, and their extreme poverty and isolation from the rest of Europe that created a cultural chasm between the and the "WASPS." They outgrew it for the most part within a couple generations. I can't believe anybody seriously believes they were seriously regarded as non-white. That was a convenient insult, because of the black/white dichotomy leading up to the Civil War.Also, the Irish were given to drunkeness but they committed relatively few serious crimes.

"The nativists considered the Irish to be white. They just didn't consider them to be American - which was not an unreasonable position to take in the 1860's."

For the first part of the 1800's, white meant Anglo-Saxon Protestant, for the most part, and black meant African-American slave.

However, the arrival of large numbers of Catholic Irish and Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish German immigrants in the 1840s and 1850s raised questions about who could be considered white and therefore fit for citizenship.

"I'm talking about a wholesale rejection of your racial fantasies regarding (a) the truth about race and (b) the desirability of mass racial diversity."

They were reffered to as "alien races". Along with Italians,and Jews,Greeks. Even into the 1980s they were whites with a cautionary asterisk...* "white ethnics"Google "Anti Irish racism"Google Images..."Anti Irish Cartoons"

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.